#vehicle confiscation

Transporting cattle within Uttar Pradesh does not require a permit under Section 5A of the Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act, so the seizure of the petitioner’s Tata Ace was unlawful. The High Court ordered its release and awarded compensation for loss of livelihood. The ruling clarifies transport requirements for intra-state cattle traders across the state.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely owning a vehicle used to transport prohibited cattle is insufficient for confiscation under the U.P. Cow Slaughter Act. Authorities must prove the vehicle was actively employed in smuggling, reinforcing due process and protecting property rights against arbitrary state action.

Allahabad HC ruled that confiscation of a vehicle under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act for intrastate transport without a permit is arbitrary and violates fundamental rights. The court set aside the confiscation order and directed ₹4 lakh compensation plus ₹2 lakh damages for unlawful auction and livelihood loss, reinforcing safeguards against arbitrary state action.

Andhra Pradesh High Court sets aside vehicle confiscation under the NDPS Act, ruling that failure to issue notice and provide an opportunity to the owner breaches procedural safeguards. The judgment mandates strict compliance with Sections 60 and 63, reinforcing due process in asset forfeiture proceedings.

Rajasthan High Court rules that vehicles seized for mining violations cannot be released on supurdaginama if confiscation proceedings are pending. Release is permitted only if no proceedings are initiated, ensuring procedural fairness for vehicle owners while balancing state enforcement powers.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that seized mining vehicles can only be released either after compounding with penalty payment or if no confiscation proceedings have been formally launched by the mining department. Supurdaginama - a personal bond for interim custody - is invalid for such vehicles once confiscation proceedings are underway, reinforcing state authority under mining statutes and protecting public revenue interests.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that vehicles seized under mining laws cannot be released merely on a supurdaginama (bond). Release is contingent on payment of penalty and compounding fees, reinforcing the state's authority in confiscation proceedings. This holding impacts vehicle owners and mining operators facing seizure under mining regulations.

MP High Court Indore declares Section 47-A of the MP Excise Act, 1915 unconstitutional, quashing vehicle confiscation orders passed without due process. The ruling mandates release of confiscated vehicles unless auctioned, reinforcing constitutional protections against arbitrary state action affecting property rights.

Rajasthan High Court rules that once confiscation proceedings under mining laws are initiated, vehicles cannot be released on supurdaginama. Interim custody is permitted only if no proceedings have commenced, ensuring authorities retain control over seized assets during legal action.

Madurai High Court allows interim return of a seized sand transport vehicle to its owner, imposing stringent conditions-Rs. 50,000 deposit, Rs. 8 lakh bond, and monthly court production-to balance property rights with prevention of re-offending. The ruling sets a precedent for conditional custody under BNSS Section 497, emphasizing judicial discretion over rigid seizure policies.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that state authorities lack jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles under cow slaughter laws while criminal proceedings are ongoing. The judgment reinforces that confiscation powers rest solely with criminal courts, protecting property rights during trial pendency.

Uttarakhand High Court directs release of a motorcycle seized under the NDPS Act, holding that prolonged detention without proof of instrumental use violates fairness and causes unjust depreciation. The ruling mandates interim release on bond or security, reinforcing the Supreme Court's Sunderbhai Desai precedent to protect owners from financial loss during trial.

Rajasthan High Court rules that vehicles seized for mining violations cannot be released on supurdaginama (temporary custody bond) once confiscation proceedings are initiated. Release is permitted only upon payment of penalty and compounding fees, ensuring stricter enforcement of mining regulations.